lafcos and joint power authorities · 2015-12-11 · 11 cities + 54 special districts for 260,000...

Defining a Relationship That Makes Sense

LAFCOs and Joint Power Authorities

JPAs: One model of collaborative service delivery … many forms of JPAs … many reasons.

Where does and doesn’t LAFCO fit in?

Do we need statutory clarification? AB 2156 (Achadjian)

Follow-up and follow-through … briefing memo to the CALAFCO Board.

Overview

Kimberly Cox, Vice Chair, San Bernardino LAFCO / Board Member, Mojave Water Agency

Paula de Sousa, Partner, Best Best & Krieger LLP

Keene Simonds, Executive Officer, Marin LAFCO

Ken Lee, Assistant Executive Officer, Orange County LAFCO (moderator)

Speaker Introductions

City council members?

Special district board members?

County supervisors?

Staff?

None of the above?

JPA member agencies?

Who’s in the room?

Ins and Outs of JPAs

Paula C. P. de SousaPartner, Best Best & Krieger LLP

• Joint Exercise of Powers Act

Government Code section 6500 et seq.

Statutory scheme in existence since 1922


• The Joint Exercise of Powers Act authorizes two kinds of JPA arrangements: Two or more public agencies can contract to jointly exercise

common powers Two or more public agencies can contract to form a separate

entity:• New separate entity formed for a specified purpose(s)• New separate entity jointly exercises common powers


• Requires two or more “public agencies” “Public Agency” is defined broadly:

• The federal government, department or agency• This state, any other state, any state department or agency• A county• A county board of education• A county superintendent of schools• A city• A public district• A public corporation• A regional transportation commission of this state or another state• A federally recognized Indian tribe• Specified private nonprofit hospitals• A mutual water company• Any joint powers authority


• JPA Agreement Requires approval by legislative or other governing bodies of two

or more public agencies Permits joint exercise of common powers, even if one or more of

the contracting parties is located out of state• Not necessary for the common power to be exercisable by all contracting

parties in the geographical area where the power is to be jointly exercised


• Requirements of JPA AgreementMust state:

• Purpose of the agreement or the power to be exercised• The method by which the purpose will be accomplished or the manner in

which the power will be exercised


• Focus on JPAs where a separate agency is formed: JPA Agency possesses the common power(s) specified in the JPA

Agreement and has independent authority to: Make and enter contracts

Employ agents and employees

Acquire, construct, manage maintain or operate any building, works or improvements

Acquire, hold dispose of property

Incur debts, liabilities or obligations

Sue or be sued


• Focus on JPAs where a separate agency is formed:Members can, but do not have to be, composed exclusively of

officials elected to one or more of the governing bodies of the parties to the JPA Agreement If the JPA Agency enters into further agreements with one or more

of the parties to the JPA Agreement, elected officials may act in both capacities


• Focus on JPAs where a separate agency is formed: JPA Agreement can specify that the debts, liabilities and

obligations of the JPA Agency are not the debts, liability and obligations of the parties to the JPA Agreement JPA Agency can exercise powers subject to “restrictions upon the

manner of exercising the power of one of the contracting parties, which party shall be designated by the agreement.”


• 2007 Senate Local Government Committee Report, “Governments Working Together, A Citizen’s Guide to Joint Powers Agreements” Role of JPAs in provision of Government Services in California

• JPAs play a rather large role: As of the 2007 report, approximately 1,800 exist providing primarily the following services: Public Services Financial Services (most common) Insurance pooling and purchasing discounts Planning ServicesRegulatory enforcement


• 2007 Senate Local Government Committee Report, “Governments Working Together, A Citizen’s Guide to Joint Powers Agreements”Why JPAs are formed:

• Cut costs• Be more efficient• Reduce or eliminate overlapping services• Share resources


• Growth Within Bounds: Planning California Governance for the 21st Century (Report of the Commission on Local Governance for the 21st

Century)

“Although some JPAs are formed solely to take advantage of a financing mechanism not otherwise available, most are true collaborations of governments that promote greater cooperation and coordination of services, even if only for specific purposes.”


• LAFCO and JPAs LAFCOs already have the ability to review municipal services

provided by JPAs:• San Diego LAFCO, for example, includes in its MSRs discussions on services

provided by JPAs. Review of Services Provided by JPAs Review of Cooperative Agreements/ Regional Coordination including JPAs

• Authority in CKH and Public Records Act: CKH: Gov. Code sections 56301, 56378, 56386 Public Records Act: Gov. Code section 6250 et seq.


Marin County’s Experience with JPAs… Good and Not So GoodKeene Simonds, Executive Officer, Marin LAFCO

LAFCOs and JPAs

CALAFCO 2014 Annual ConferenceDoubletree Resort, Ontario, California

October 15-17, 2014

First a Little Context…

Marin County has love/no love relationship with local government

lots of traditional local government; most pre 1980 -11 cities + 54 special districts for 260,000 residents = 1 agency per 4,063

new government dynamic post 1980 with increasing JPA footprint- approximately 30 “parent” JPAs many with their own JPA offspring

community push to sunlight/reduce government; JPAs targeted- fallout from SB 375: housing allocations and issue of “local control”- benefits of cost-savings giving way to concerns over local accountability

Marin County’s Experience with JPAs…

Recent Newspaper Headlines on JPAs…

“64 local agencies and counting, reports 'bewildered' grand jury”(Pacific Sun from June 1, 2012)

- Grand Jury notes “no one really knows how many JPAs exist” in Marin County

“Silencing the voice of the people”(Marin Independent Journal /Op-ed from August 14, 2013) - asserts JPAs operate without “vote of the people” and “undermines local control”

“Marin cities are giving up local control”(Marin Independent Journal / Op-ed from October 23, 2013)- argues local control being “sold-out to over-reaching regional agendas of JPAs”


One Reason for Pushback Against JPAs…

Sewer Agency of Southern Marin (A Not So Good Experience)

SASM created in 1973 to fund/operate WTP serving South Marin- one city (Mill Valley) and five special districts from surrounding communities

formed out of necessity to comply with Clean Water Act- agencies were discharging sewage year-round into Richardson Bay- Clean Water Act prohibits… provides funding opportunity to build WTPs

agreement preserved status quo for all six agencies- all six agencies continued to operate collections systems with their own staff- each agency gets one seat on the six-person JPA Board- Mill Valley staff assigned to operate WTP; reports to SASM Board


One Reason for Pushback Against JPAs (continued)…

Sewer Agency of Southern Marin (A Not So Good Experience)

Marin LAFCO performs MSR in 2004; notes JPA is a half-measure- recommends full consolidation (functional or political) to address concerns - Commission encourages agencies to consider options; targets next MSR

game changer; wastewater spills into Richardson Bay - two big spills in late January 2008; first spill 2.5mg and second spill 2.7mg- public not notified of first spill for 24 hours- SASM fined $1.6m and EPA cites “underfunded” and “undermanaged” systems- SASM pays fine by depleting JPA reserves; necessitates a 15% rate increase


One Reason for Pushback Against JPAs (continued)… Sewer Agency of Southern Marin (A Not So Good Experience) fallout for SASM from 2008 sewer spills

- decision to payout fines/fees out of SASM reserves prompts member infighting - Richardson Bay Sanitary District sues Mill Valley as operator of WTP

rejected by Court; rules RBSD does not have standing to seek recovery- RBSD responds and makes motion at SASM for SASM to collect from Mill Valley

motion generates 3/3 split in 2010 and no action is taken

end result is SASM continues to operate as is… - collection systems (source of problem) remain independently operated - LAFCO’s effort to consolidate 4/6 in 2012 fails at election; local control cited


One Reason to Counter Pushback Against JPAs… Central Marin Police Authority (A Good Experience) initially created as Twin Cities Police Agency in 1980

- two adjacent cities - Corte Madera and Larkspur - start talking in 1978- new chief in Corte Madera; retiring chief in Larkspur sparks mutual interest

formed out of interest to mix/match resources for mutual benefit - each city assigned two seats on four-member police council - each city manager make up two-member management committee- functions like a traditional city department with chief reporting to city managers

initial JPA version – Twin Cities – proves successful / full measure- complete integration- economies of scale established through smoothing over time - governance structure of JPA proves responsive to respective councils


One Reason to Counter Pushback Against JPAs (cont.)… Central Marin Police Authority (A Good Experience)

seed planted in 2010 to expand JPA to include San Anselmo- construction of new Twin City police station creates need to house TC dispatch - San Anselmo agrees to house Twin City dispatch… dating begins

Twin Cities reciprocates and provides support services (investigations, etc) - San Anselmo chief announces retirement in 2011… marriage talks begin

making the deal to add San Anselmo to Twin Cities JPA- mix and match to provide comparable pension benefits for San Anselmo - no job losses for either agency (Twin Cities and San Anselmo) - San Anselmo gets to pick name and logo… Central Marin Police Authority


One Reason to Counter Pushback Against JPAs (cont.)…

Central Marin Police Authority (A Good Experience) reasons why Central Marin Police Authority JPA works

- costs savings real; San Anselmo saved $1.7 million in 2013 over prior year- redundancy reduction real; 70 FTE in 2010 to 58 FTE in 2014

absorbed job openings as existing personnel retired and left- equitable cost-sharing that is easy for public to understand

administrative costs split evenly among three membersfield costs proportionally divided by past year service call/incident volume

next steps... - system readily expandable; are other communities ready…


CALAFCO Legislative Committee – JPA Work Group

Movement Towards Legislation

What it does …

What it doesn’t do …

AB 2156 (Achadjian)

Expand and add new requirement for JPAs to file copies of agreements/amendments with LAFCOs

Clarify existing law to allow LAFCOs to include JPAs in municipal service reviews (MSRs) with local prerogative

Clarify existing law to define JPAs as public agencies for out-of-agency service agreements (Gov’t Code §56133) and exemptions from LAFCO review

JPA Work Group – Legislative Proposal

Need for legislative clarification

Original legislative intent of JPAs?

Unseen, unknown government?

Sufficiency of LAFCO’s existing authority?

Other perspectives?

Perspectives … from our esteemed panel

Need for legislative clarification

Original legislative intent of JPAs?

Unseen, unknown government?

Sufficiency of LAFCO’s existing authority?

Other perspectives?

Perspectives … from our esteemed audience

Briefing Memo to CALAFCO Board of Directors

Wrap-up

Defining a Relationship That Makes Sense

LAFCOs and Joint Power Authorities

lafcos and joint power authorities · 2015-12-11 · 11 cities + 54 special districts for 260,000...

Documents